Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > Quite different reasons?

Quite different reasons?

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:04 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 18 posts ] 
Quite different reasons? 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Quite different reasons?   Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:04 am
The water ressources at moon and Mars are very limited compared to Earth's water reservoirs.

This means that moon and Mars cannot bear that number of men that are living down here on Earth.

The only really interesting site actually will be the detected sea. Please try to find out or to estimate how much people could live at the shores of that sea without destroying and loosing that reservoir - it has be kept constant and permanent as the earthian oceans, rivers and seas are.

I suppose at the sea cannot live millions of people but thousands only.

This may be a sufficient reason to restrict tourist, settlers, colonists and immigrants as well as number of launches and landings. Such limitations have been valid in the nearby past in earthian countries too - Malta for example.

What about that? And what about making the restrictions dependent of indices?

It's a question of overpopulation.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post Re: Quite different reasons?   Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:20 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
The water ressources at moon and Mars are very limited compared to Earth's water reservoirs.

Ok

my man Ekkie A wrote:
This means that moon and Mars cannot bear that number of men that are living down here on Earth.

But for women it's a different story, believe it people.

Ekke wrote:
The only really interesting site actually will be the detected sea. Please try to find out or to estimate how much people could live at the shores of that sea without destroying and loosing that reservoir - it has be kept constant and permanent as the earthian oceans, rivers and seas are.

I will try, but first you have to tell me what sea you are talking about.

Ekke the unstoppable wrote:
I suppose at the sea cannot live millions of people but thousands only.

You could be right. It's hard to argue at this point.

Ekke the indomitable wrote:
This may be a sufficient reason to restrict tourist, settlers, colonists and immigrants as well as number of launches and landings. Such limitations have been valid in the nearby past in earthian countries too - Malta for example.

Perhaps it will be self-limiting? No wait, I'm sorry, I meant to say "what?"

Ekke my tolerant friend wrote:
What about that? And what about making the restrictions dependent of indices?

Exactly. This is self evident.

Ekke the succinct wrote:
It's a question of overpopulation.

Yes, and it's too late to do anything about it now. We'll have to find another sea.

Ekkehard, it's too late in the week for this. I can see that you're feeling pretty tired mate. Take it easy this weekend ok?

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:50 am
Hello, Dr_Keith_H,

didn't you read of the detection of the frozen sea at Mars near the equator?

Sounding like you are making a joke of my choice of expression :lol: . Fine to see you posting again - I have been thinking for a while what may have been happened to you.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:05 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
didn't you read of the detection of the frozen sea at Mars near the equator?

Yes, I have heard about it in passing, interesting if true. Oh THAT sea? That's the one you were talking about then. How big is it anyway?

Quote:
Sounding like you are making a joke of my choice of expression :lol: . Fine to see you posting again - I have been thinking for a while what may have been happened to you.

Yeah, I'm just having a bit of fun. I've been on vacation and my first week back has been very very busy, that's why I've been unsichtbar ... I finally got some quiet time today! TGIF.

I hope all is well with you and yours.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:17 am
Dr_Keith_H wrote:
Yes, I have heard about it in passing, interesting if true. Oh THAT sea? That's the one you were talking about then. How big is it anyway?

DKH


Apparently its about 800km by 900km and 45m deep covered in a thin crust of dust, here's some more information on it.

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2915

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:14 pm
Looks like the science team involved is going to give a press briefing with the first conclusions today ...

http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMJXQYEM4E_0.html

Should be interesting.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:16 pm
Hello, Dr_Keith_H,

everything is as fine as possible - I have no wife and no children, my parents are fine and so on. Some private people here in Hamburg are behaving problematically but I'm used to that.

To turn to the topic here - it seems that some initial regulations might be required because noone knows wether there are unknown martian microbes in that sea. So there might a kind of quarantine be required that can be removed later if no microbes are found or if they don't do any harm to humans.

What regulations would you consider to be required seen from your science? It's a quite new situation because they are regarding unknown and alien organisms.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:33 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
everything is as fine as possible - I have no wife and no children, my parents are fine and so on. Some private people here in Hamburg are behaving problematically but I'm used to that.

Great! Same here.

I think you might be jumping the gun a bit in your first post. It's quite a stretch to now link the finding of large (near) surface ice deposits on mars with the capacity to support a human colony. But, since we are merely idling away the hours here ...

The first physical exploration of the area (if the surface ice observation holds up) will likely be with remotely operated (semi autonomous) robotic labs ... probably not too dissimilar from the spectacular pairing of Spirit and Opportunity. Their prime job will be to search for signs of life ...

If they DO find signs of life (even historical signs, meaning life that was once there but is not detectable as living now) then that may complicate plans to use the water as a resource. Possibly for ever and anon.

If they don't find life then they may then consider the increased possibility that mars is in fact a sterile planet. Which then puts a large hole in the a major reason behind sending probes there in the first place. So it may be a very long time indeed before the water resource found would then be subject to your original questions.

As regards to your questions ... merely having water is not enough to support a community on mars, obviously. So calculating how many people might be supported with a resource depends upon a very large number of other factors (known and unknown) associated with establishing a colony on mars in the first place. Atmospheric considerations loom large, gotta breathe y'know. Also, protection from severe weather patterns are a significant issue which is yet to be properly assessed. There are other things ... all of this makes it extremely difficult to do the calculation

X tonnes of water = Y number of colonists

with any faith.

So, you could probably come up with a back-of-the-envelope calculation if you wanted to ... but it would be deeply flawed by necessarily ignoring other unexplored factors.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:22 pm
That's a very good answer.

My initial post merely was an imagination how an earthian government might think perhaps. I myself allways would prefer very detailed considerations, estimations and so on before setting a maximum number but politicians and governments may behave quite different. I am used to see them acting on poor fundaments and basics - and to show action simply instead of having in mind improvements or protections or assitances and so on.

NASA, UNO and the like may try to regulate martian tourism, settlement or colonization if there would be signs of such processes in a future decades or centuries away.

Perhaps it may start when a permanent Mars station would be established by NASA or by the Chinese (they have been suspected to intend a chinese Mars station one time last year).

So your post provides the community here with a way how to handle the politicians.

What else do all the readers and participants here think about all this?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:34 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
NASA, UNO and the like may try to regulate martian tourism, settlement or colonization if there would be signs of such processes in a future decades or centuries away.

How is tourism to antarctica regulated?

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/tourism.html

Might be a reasonable model to start with.

DKH

P.S. Which one do you think would be the first to be colonized, in the "westward ho" sense (i.e. not scientific "colonization") ... mars or antarctica.

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:49 pm
Definitely Mars. There's nothing interesting to see in Antarctica, except ice. Lots and lots of ice. And guys running around with snot frozen on their noses.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:51 pm
Dr_Keith_H wrote:
As regards to your questions ... merely having water is not enough to support a community on mars, obviously. So calculating how many people might be supported with a resource depends upon a very large number of other factors (known and unknown) associated with establishing a colony on mars in the first place. Atmospheric considerations loom large, gotta breathe y'know. Also, protection from severe weather patterns are a significant issue which is yet to be properly assessed. There are other things ... all of this makes it extremely difficult to do the calculation

X tonnes of water = Y number of colonists

with any faith.
DKH


This brings up an interesting point, its all very well saying that we can use the ice on Mars to make rocket fuel and oxygen but there will be significant power requirements to process it and live there. I suspect the amount of colonists will be limited by the power available to them.

The use of solar power may be limited due to atmospheric conditions, some dust storms can last months, which would seriously reduce the amount of power available. Other energy sources will be required, even NASA will be using a nuclear power plant on its Mars Science Laboratory (A larger version of the one used on its Viking probes). Not sure whether it would be a good idea to scale this up for a colony or create a full sized nuclear power station though.

I dont know how constant the winds on Mars are but a wind turbine might be a better alternative to a nuclear power station which would have to be fairly large to supply a reasonable sized colony. Geothermal power doesn't look like a goer at the moment as Mars appears to be inactive. So the best bet might be a hibrid solar/wind power station.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:58 pm
Mars would be colonized first because of its emptyness as a planet. The photos sent by Spirit and Opportumity tend to look friendly and sunny and - main reason perhaps - the rocks and hills and craters provide assistance for habitats and mining that cannot be found at Antarctica.

The question of regulation of antartican tourism didn't arise yet because the number of tourists isn't that high and the resources of water are rich because Antarctica is part of our water-rich Earth.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:23 pm
spacecowboy ... I agree there is not a whole hell of a lot to see in the antarctic, but it still attracts tourists nevertheless. Including that small but growing brand of adventure tourists. What is there to see on Mars? It's a pretty uniform looking planet to my eye, what am I missing?

Ekkehard ... what if something like The Antarctic Treaty was applied to mars. I think something like that stands a very good chance of happening.

I wondered if you thought colonization of mars would be a response to overpopulation on earth, so you think people would ignore antarctica as a cheaper/safer/easier option and go straight to mars first? No way.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:30 pm
Andy Hill wrote:
I dont know how constant the winds on Mars are but a wind turbine might be a better alternative to a nuclear power station which would have to be fairly large to supply a reasonable sized colony. Geothermal power doesn't look like a goer at the moment as Mars appears to be inactive. So the best bet might be a hibrid solar/wind power station.

Wind turbines on Mars. That sounds like a fine idea. Except having moving parts necessitates some sort of maintenance requirement, more so than solar power anyway. Not good for robotic labs, but it's not so hard when you've got a human wandering around the place.

How thin is too thin an atmosphere for a workable wind turbine? Given off the shelf technology.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use